Similar to most readers of this blog, I am not a U.S. citizen, and so I really shouldn't be concerning myself about voicing my views on U.S. politics. However, the preponderance of the U.S. over world affairs (particulary security matters) behooves one to, at the very least, be curious as to how leadership change will turn out in that country. If it helps, let's confine our discussion on security matters.
Barrack Obama has apparently clinched the Democratic Party's nomination as candidate for U.S. President. I view this as a favorable development because among the three candidates that have attained most publicity, it is only him whose message makes the most sense. He is running on a platform of "change we can believe in". While the word itself could apply to various aspects of the U.S. government work, it would have the most impact on its dealings with hostile nations and non-state actors (NSAs).
His two other rivals - fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, and Republican John McCain - have both, on numerous occasions scored Obama on what they perceive to be his inexperience in governance and foreign policy matters. While this criticism is valid in any other situation, it actually is not applicable in the case at hand. Allow me to explain:
First factor: The strength of the U.S. 2-party system ensures that their Presidency is occupied by individuals who (1) enjoy popular mandate; and (2) possess the requisite skill to withstand the pressure of governing the most powerful country in the world. While the 2-party system is not a fixed rule, it has been informally institutionalized by the American people who saw the advantage of confining electoral debate on issues rather than personalities. Anyone who ends up being the official presidential nominee of either the Democratic or Republican parties is certain to have gone through a rigorous campaign trail marked by alliance-building, consultations with different demographical groups, fundraising, numerous debates and public speaking engagements.
Simply speaking, the system is idiot-proof (although George W. Bush has certainly placed a good challenge to this observation in recent years), and anyone who ends up as a nominee has certainly proven himself an able politician who deserves more than the benefit of the doubt as regards his fitness to be president.
Second Factor: The U.S. federal government, while being one of the most complicated bureaucracies in the world, is nevertheless very efficient. Each component of the bureaucracy could work semi-independently, carrying out its tasks in accordance with the policies of the current administration, and needing very little hands-on management from the sitting president himself.
This means the actual effort needed for the president to "maintain" the government can be provided by both an experienced and an inexperienced politician alike. With an efficient bureaucracy and a battery of expert advisors on various policy matters, an experienced politician has no clear advantage over an inexperienced one.
These two factors combined together certainly make a good case for making experience in governance a relatively negligible point in assessing one's fitness to be President of the United States.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Whether Americans like it or not, the rest of the world has a stake in whoever gets elected as leader of their country. Obviously, U.S. popularity is at an all-time low for the most part of George W. Bush's presidency - brought about no less by a disastrous and ill-conceived war against terrorism. The unfortunate fact about this is that Americans do have a "rally around the flag" mentality, which was taken advantage of by Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. The highlight of this was the invasion of Iraq which, it can be remembered, had the blessing of an overwhelming majority of the U.S. Congress - Democrats included.
Now that the smoke has cleared from all that, it seems quite obvious that a change in the U.S.' approach towards the rest of the world - including its enemies - is needed, if only because a total war approach has proven to be a national liability. Americans are no safer today than they were just after 9/11. Iraqis and Americans die almost every day in Iraq, which is now more chaotic than ever. And most of all, the one enemy which the U.S. government believes to be the source of evil - Osama bin Laden - is nowhere near being captured. But what is probably worse though is that North Korea and Iran - two very extremist states - have nearly managed to become nuclear powers despite the tough stance of the U.S. against them.
Clearly the old approach made things worse. What's funny is that Clinton and McCain, who have been two of its staunchest supporters, are now saying they want a change in that approach. Furthermore, they both claim to be the best person who could bring the needed change about. One fact that almost escaped everyone's notice is that Obama has opposed the approach from the very beginning, and is probably the only candidate whose stand has been consistent since before the election season.
Clinton and McCain face a lot more difficulties than they would admit. In a nutshell: Clinton, has to fully account for the fact that she flip-flopped by initially supporting the war on terror, and now opposing it - thereby undermining her decisiveness and wisdom. As for McCain, he has the unenviable task of trying to persuade voters that he can win the war on terror using basically the same formula that Bush has followed - a formula that has no known authentic victories since it was first devised. For Clinton, it's a problem of inconsistency. For McCain, it's a problem of convincing people that wrong is right. For both of these candidates, the preferred approach is to have their "experience" to mask their lack of credibility.
Obama's plan of action, on the other hand, focuses on engagement, rather than confrontation. While the very idea of this is anathema to almost all policy makers of the old school mould, Obama makes a good case with the simple argument that confrontation without negotiation has made life worse for everyone, and has heightened, rather than lessened the security threat to America.
The problem with the concept of making national interest the root of all policy is the fact that it is inherently selfish. It seeks to put one's own country's interest above others. When this concept is devised by a government (such as the present Bush administration) that does not even see the need to listen to hostile countries for possible areas of compromise, then it almost always results to an escalation of conflict rather than its avoidance. Obama proposes a revolutionary change in this approach by suggesting that there might be room for the exploration of common interest with countries like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea.
Hawkish critics, who are threatened by this entirely novel idea of negotiating with enemies, term this approach as "appeasement" without basis. Apparently, the erroneous idea behind it is that all forms of negotiation would immediately result to capitulation. Still, an even more flawed idea behind all that is the notion that it is only the strength of arms, and not diplomatic skill, which can uphold national interest in the face of opposing interests. It hasn't occurred to anyone that it is entirely possible to negotiate and arrive at something that would still be in accordance with national interest.
It is very (but remotely) possible for Obama to be proven wrong in the end. But at least there is someone who is willing to believe that a more peaceful way is the best path towards peace. More importantly, there is someone who is willing to find common ground with the rest of the world.
Now, I'm not going to fully advocate the Gore model either, for the simple reason that I still think the person who gets more votes, no matter how small the lead, should win an election. But our politicians can probably emulate Gore on the manner by which he put the well-being of the country above his own political ambitions despite being so near to his goal. 
